Vehicle Code Prohibits City from Indirectly Charging Solid Waste Trucks for Use of Roadway
On August 20, 2025, the California Supreme Court denied review of a Court of Appeal decision finding that the City of Redlands charged an impermissible fee for the privilege of using local roads by embedding street repair costs into its solid waste collection rates. The court limited refunds to those customers that paid solid waste collection rates under protest.
Background
The City of Redlands operates a municipal solid waste collection system. In 2012, the City developed a pavement management program based on a study which found that City refuse vehicles caused approximately $3.6 million in annual street damage. As part of the program (referred to by the City as the Pavement Accelerated Repair Implementation Strategy, or “PARIS”), the City authorized annual transfers of $3.62 million from the solid waste enterprise to support the cost of Citywide street repairs, explicitly recognizing that solid waste vehicles placed "significant burden" on city streets. The City established solid waste rates to recover the full cost of solid waste service, including the costs of the PARIS program.
Ratepayer Challenges Solid Waste Rates
Steve Rogers filed a class action lawsuit in 2021, alleging that the street repair costs which were embedded in the City’s solid waste rates violated Vehicle Code section 9400.8, which prohibits local agencies from charging for the privilege of using local roads, other than a permit fee for extra-legal loads. Rogers challenged the validity of the fee, and sued for a refund on behalf of himself and other members of the class. The trial court determined that the component of the solid waste rates funding the PARIS program was an illegal charge for the privilege of using local roads under Vehicle Code section 9400.8, and directed the City to stop collection of the portion of solid waste rates used to fund the PARIS program or any similar program that may be established by the City. The Court then also found that Health and Safety Code Section 5472 limited the availability of refunds to customers who had paid their bills "under protest," which Rogers had not done.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that the component of the solid waste rates funding the PARIS program were imposed for the privilege of using local roads, despite being charged to offset the impacts of estimated road damage from garbage trucks.
The Court also confirmed that Health and Safety Code section 5472 applies to refunds of garbage collection charges, thus requiring payment under protest to preserve any right to refund. The Court therefore barred any refund for Rogers because he had failed to pay under protest.
What Comes Next?
The California Supreme Court declined to review this decision on August 20, 2025. As such, this decision is final, and absent conflicting appellate court decisions in the future, legislation may be necessary to ensure continued funding for vital public infrastructure. In the meantime, public agencies responsible for local road maintenance and repair should consult with their legal counsel to assess the impacts of this case on their jurisdiction.
For more information, contact Lutfi Kharuf, Sergio Rudin and Joshua Nelson.
Disclaimer: BBK Legal Alerts are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts, facts specific to your situation, or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information herein.
